[url]http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329832.700-googles-factchecking-bots-build-vast-knowledge-bank.html[/url]
[quote]GOOGLE is building the largest store of knowledge in human history – and it's doing so without any human help.
Instead, Knowledge Vault autonomously gathers and merges information from across the web into a single base of facts about the world, and the people and objects in it.
The breadth and accuracy of this gathered knowledge is already becoming the foundation of systems that allow robots and smartphones to understand what people ask them. It promises to let Google answer questions like an oracle rather than a search engine, and even to turn a new lens on human history.
Knowledge Vault is a type of "knowledge base" – a system that stores information so that machines as well as people can read it. Where a database deals with numbers, a knowledge base deals with facts. When you type "Where was Madonna born" into Google, for example, the place given is pulled from Google's existing knowledge base.
This existing base, called Knowledge Graph, relies on crowdsourcing to expand its information. But the firm noticed that growth was stalling; humans could only take it so far.
So Google decided it needed to automate the process. It started building the Vault by using an algorithm to automatically pull in information from all over the web, using machine learning to turn the raw data into usable pieces of knowledge.
Knowledge Vault has pulled in 1.6 billion facts to date. Of these, 271 million are rated as "confident facts", to which Google's model ascribes a more than 90 per cent chance of being true. It does this by cross-referencing new facts with what it already knows.[/quote]
Damn, I REALLY wish I could have direct access to that, I mean, even just read only.
[editline]26th August 2014[/editline]
It's probably still kinda barebones but it might grow into pretty much entire new level of human knowledge, eventually.
oh god it's like super wikipedia
... what if this was expanded to be browsable by the public
what if you could view a timeline of an article's history and how knowledge/public opinion gathered results changed over the years for the topic?
Imagine in the far future when people can just beam information into there brains, someone has the bright idea to beam Google's entire knowledge vault into there mind.
[editline]value[/editline]
I think I might be far too tired to be on Facepunch today..
The infosphere begins!
[IMG]http://www.computescotland.com/images/QU1LNadg34NzXZKjyW7J06y07j.jpg[/IMG]
I suppose the data off all those app permissions has to go somewhere....
Knowledge equals power. Could this be the new order of the sith?
Having a massive repository of human knowledge that's static or at least unchangeable by biased humans with agendas sounds amazing. I mean, Wikipedia is great and mostly reliable, but it's still run and written by human beings, and therefore imperfect at its core. When the info-gathering is done by a machine with no human bias, however, I think it'll make a much more reliably-neutral and accurate knowledge base.
Also, potentially-stupid idea, but maybe this would be useful for if a sentient or near-sentient AI is created in the next century. Rather than having to tell it all sorts of things one-by-one and/or rely upon potentially-flawed human descriptions of objects/places/events/etc., you could just have it connect to this massive information repository and learn all it needs to learn fairly-quickly.
Whether that'd save humanity from Judgement Day with the power of (teaching it the concept of) love, or just teach the AI how to be more creative in orchestrating species-scale genocide, nobody can predict.
[QUOTE=a wet towel;45799275]The infosphere begins!
[IMG]http://www.computescotland.com/images/QU1LNadg34NzXZKjyW7J06y07j.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
I was thinking more along the lines of this:
[img]http://images.wikia.com/avatar/images/archive/4/4c/20110118215232!Wan_Shi_Tong.png[/img]
[QUOTE=The First 11'er;45799628]I was thinking more along the lines of this:
[img]http://images.wikia.com/avatar/images/archive/4/4c/20110118215232!Wan_Shi_Tong.png[/img][/QUOTE]
That was just a regular boring library, though.
[QUOTE=TurboSax;45799587]Having a massive repository of human knowledge that's static or at least unchangeable by biased humans with agendas sounds amazing. I mean, Wikipedia is great and mostly reliable, but it's still run and written by human beings, and therefore imperfect at its core. When the info-gathering is done by a machine with no human bias, however, I think it'll make a much more reliably-neutral and accurate knowledge base.
Also, potentially-stupid idea, but maybe this would be useful for if a sentient or near-sentient AI is created in the next century. Rather than having to tell it all sorts of things one-by-one and/or rely upon potentially-flawed human descriptions of objects/places/events/etc., you could just have it connect to this massive information repository and learn all it needs to learn fairly-quickly.
Whether that'd save humanity from Judgement Day with the power of (teaching it the concept of) love, or just teach the AI how to be more creative in orchestrating species-scale genocide, nobody can predict.[/QUOTE]
What happens when that AI has conflicting information though due to info collected from opinion-based observations? Or a double negative that leads to a neutral answer? I guess that only applies in places where information has to be processed and a logical decision has to be made, which doesn't happen often in things of opinion, but still, food for thought.
I bet its full of porn.
[t]http://www.toptiertactics.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/tf2-warehouse-raiders-of-the-lost-ark.png[/t]
[I]Inside the knowledge vault.[/I]
So when the NSA builds a data collection center, it's horrible, but when google does it, it's alright?
[editline]26th August 2014[/editline]
I'm just being serious here, Google is about as trustworthy as the NSA when it comes to doing bad things with peoples' data.
[QUOTE=FurrehFaux;45799904]So when the NSA builds a data collection center, it's horrible, but when google does it, it's alright?
[editline]26th August 2014[/editline]
I'm just being serious here, Google is about as trustworthy as the NSA when it comes to doing bad things with peoples' data.[/QUOTE]
I believe it's a matter of permissions and agreements that dictates which is okay in peoples' minds, and which isn't.
With Google, they only get your data from using their services, buying their products and signing up for their memberships. They pretty much have to make you agree, using TOS agreements when you sign up or use a service/product, even if you're unaware because you didn't read the whole thing. What they do with the data can potentially be pretty shitty, but they [I]do[/I] basically say "let us use your data, or don't use our stuff" up-front.
With the NSA, however, there are [I]supposed [/I]to be a whole bunch of checks and balances in place to make sure citizens have a decent level of privacy, if not total privacy, unless suspected of criminal activity. One of the most fundamental elements of the U.S. legal system is the idea that people are entitled to privacy, unless court/legal order overrules that right for a specific individual. The NSA casually data-gathering on a mass scale and breaking into places they aren't allowed to go is both not permitted and explicitly illegal, but they still do it anyways.
The NSA's spying is a whole lot different from Google's, in that they not only [I]don't[/I] have the permission of the people they're peeping in on, but they actually have [I]explicit rules[/I] put in place by supposedly-higher powers to ensure that they don't do this shit unless it's truly necessary for stopping specific high-risk people. Google's doing what they told you they'd do, even if it was in tiny print, and they're legally allowed to. The NSA is doing whatever it wants, illegally, and without your consent on any level.
At the very least, Google obligates you to allow their snooping via legal agreements if you want to use their products and services, and tells you this up-front on sign-up. The NSA just does whatever the fuck it wants, and fuck you if you don't like it, or even if you don't live in this country.
Mind you, I'm not defending mass-data-gathering and personal snooping practices for either side. Both sides doing it is pretty nasty. However, Google is better than the NSA, in terms of both legality and user/citizen consent. Google might potentially be doing the same thing as the NSA, but they at least tell you and ask nicely first.
[I]After the nuclear apocalypse, the Brotherhood stumbled upon its greatest find ever...[/I]
IBM Watson motherfuckers
So, uh, what's gonna happen when it becomes sentient and uses all of it's vast knowledge to enslave the human race? :v:
[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;45800248][I]After the nuclear apocalypse, the Brotherhood stumbled upon its greatest find ever...[/I][/QUOTE]
The largest collection of porn in existence.
i wonder if google will have to pay a fee for a JSTOR account
the last time someone tried to make JSTOR free they ended up committing suicide
I was thinking closer along the lines of...
[img]http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090824203747/superman/images/2/2c/Burton_Brainiac_Ship.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=FurrehFaux;45799904]So when the NSA builds a data collection center, it's horrible, but when google does it, it's alright?
[editline]26th August 2014[/editline]
I'm just being serious here, Google is about as trustworthy as the NSA when it comes to doing bad things with peoples' data.[/QUOTE]
Except Google doesn't tap your fucking phone lines, send people to jail, or put spyware on your computer.
I don't get how people can't understand the difference. One is a company that has no authority over you, the other is the fucking government who can and will use the information against you if it suits them. This isn't even mentioning the fact that Google only knows what you put in it, the NSA are taking [i]everything[/i].
[editline]25th August 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=TurboSax;45800060]I believe it's a matter of permissions and agreements that dictates which is okay in peoples' minds, and which isn't.
With Google, they only get your data from using their services, buying their products and signing up for their memberships. They pretty much have to make you agree, using TOS agreements when you sign up or use a service/product, even if you're unaware because you didn't read the whole thing. What they do with the data can potentially be pretty shitty, but they [I]do[/I] basically say "let us use your data, or don't use our stuff" up-front.
With the NSA, however, there are [I]supposed [/I]to be a whole bunch of checks and balances in place to make sure citizens have a decent level of privacy, if not total privacy, unless suspected of criminal activity. One of the most fundamental elements of the U.S. legal system is the idea that people are entitled to privacy, unless court/legal order overrules that right for a specific individual. The NSA casually data-gathering on a mass scale and breaking into places they aren't allowed to go is both not permitted and explicitly illegal, but they still do it anyways.
The NSA's spying is a whole lot different from Google's, in that they not only [I]don't[/I] have the permission of the people they're peeping in on, but they actually have [I]explicit rules[/I] put in place by supposedly-higher powers to ensure that they don't do this shit unless it's truly necessary for stopping specific high-risk people. Google's doing what they told you they'd do, even if it was in tiny print, and they're legally allowed to. The NSA is doing whatever it wants, illegally, and without your consent on any level.
At the very least, Google obligates you to allow their snooping via legal agreements if you want to use their products and services, and tells you this up-front on sign-up. The NSA just does whatever the fuck it wants, and fuck you if you don't like it, or even if you don't live in this country.
Mind you, I'm not defending mass-data-gathering and personal snooping practices for either side. Both sides doing it is pretty nasty. However, Google is better than the NSA, in terms of both legality and user/citizen consent. Google might potentially be doing the same thing as the NSA, but they at least tell you and ask nicely first.[/QUOTE]
And this. Much more eloquently put.
[QUOTE=FurrehFaux;45799904]So when the NSA builds a data collection center, it's horrible, but when google does it, it's alright?
[editline]26th August 2014[/editline]
I'm just being serious here, Google is about as trustworthy as the NSA when it comes to doing bad things with peoples' data.[/QUOTE]
I see it more as it's just aggregating a huge amount of public data and making it easier to access and use, whereas the NSA was using backdoors in major companies to gain access to information that would otherwise be private. If the average person has access to some information, that information isn't private anymore.
[QUOTE=FurrehFaux;45799904]So when the NSA builds a data collection center, it's horrible, but when google does it, it's alright?
[editline]26th August 2014[/editline]
I'm just being serious here, Google is about as trustworthy as the NSA when it comes to doing bad things with peoples' data.[/QUOTE]
the difference between google's knowledge database and the NSA might have something to do with "trivia + factoids" vs "spying on your emails and text messages and passing your nude photos around an office of 20 something year old dudes"
When you consider the disturbing amount of knowledge that is completely lost because it hasn't spread or been archived, this could turn out to be a nice blessing. Or a horrible, horrible curse.
Aah Shimshon, this vault will be grand!
I think google should make this data physical somehow.
Honestly lets just say in 200 years we all go extinct but the planet is still here and the surface becomes almost like a barren wasteland of nothing... id like some underground vault with all our history in a simple physical format to be read and interpreted by any alien civilization that stumbles upon us in the distant future. I know they will find books and what have you, but i feel like having it all condensed and up to date ( now with the turn of the tech era ) would make it look like we actually were pretty damn intelligent...
... i mean besides the fact we all died and weren't able to get off the planet.
In other news this is an awesome idea.
I don't like the idea of google having more power
I wonder if it's censored at all.
It'd be quite amusing if Google tried to collect as many facts about the world as possible but only if it wasn't 18+
what happens if it gains sentience. :tinfoil:
[url]http://www.androidheadlines.com/2014/08/google-now-may-reach-sentience-googles-newest-project-knowledge-vault.html[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
